From bad to worse: Santa Barbara County Auditor-Controller Robert Geis recently informed the board that the county may owe the state almost $32 million in MediCal cost settlements. The announcement comes at a precarious time for the county and its budget.

Article Tools

The budget crunch is beginning to take its toll on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, with two members bickering Tuesday and a third speaking of an impending emergency of disastrous proportions. Enormous questions remain about where the county stands financially as it heads into the future years of potential fiscal instability, and they loom all the more heavily in respect to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s announcement that the State Legislature will be called into a special session November 5 to address its disingenuous budget, which now has a potential deficit of $10 billion, as opposed to the previous $3 billion.

Every individual dollar is being scrutinized these days, as demonstrated early in the supervisors’ meeting, when, with 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf dissenting, the board voted to contract out a construction project to build an aquatics complex in Cuyama. Along with the new pool will be a budget commitment of $168,000 annually to run it. “We’re talking about our financial crisis but we find it very easy to allocate money,” Wolf decried. That touched a nerve with Supervisor Joe Centeno, whose 5th District encompasses Cuyama. He suggested the board had neglected Cuyama while turning down “project after project” that could have “dumped that revenue stream to the county.”

While that battle focused on smaller funds, state auditing indicates the county ship might be dealing with a bigger iceberg. Recently, an audit of the county’s department of Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health Services shows that the county, from 2002 through 2007, might’ve goofed in its billing and consequently owes $17.1 million in cost settlements with the state for MediCal reimbursements. The county only has $3 million in its reserves to cover such exceptions.

Similarly, county officials were in Los Angeles Tuesday appealing a state finding that other departments’ MediCal reimbursements should have been disallowed. The county’s potential liability in these cases totals $14.4 million. According to budget director Dr. Jason Stilwell, granting for the program expired, but the program continued. The state surely isn’t going to cut any slack to anyone who owes it money, as it’s in quite the bungle itself.

Should Measure A fail to pass on Tuesday, the county will have an $8 million hole in the Public Works Department to deal with road projects and construction.

And while the county waits to hear from the state how these scenarios will impact its coffers, it still has a long list of other fiscal issues. While the county has secured state funding to pay most of the costs resulting from a North County jail, the county will have to spend $17.4 million annually to operate it. Should Measure A fail to pass on Tuesday, the county will have an $8 million hole in the Public Works Department to deal with road projects and construction. County officials aren’t positive they’ll be reimbursed by the state for the $1.5 million cost of the June election, and the county’s tax revenue from the neutrality agreement with Goleta will be decreasing come 2011. And that’s not even mentioning the potential mid-fiscal-year cuts in coming months, or the likely cuts coming next June.

That’s why, in a decision made on October 21, the supervisors chose to furlough the majority of county jobs for a two-week period over the holiday season in an effort to save money. County operations will be closed between December 22 and January 4, an already minimally staffed period traditionally. While emergency personnel will still be operating, all others will be closed either for part or for the entire period, saving the county at least $10.1 million.

The recent moves and news has rankled some county employees. Mindy Boulet, a deputy public defender, said that most all of the attorneys in her office object to the furloughs. “We do so in protection of our clients’ interests,” she said, listing several counties where the public defender’s office wasn’t furloughing anyone. Additionally, she explained, the district attorney’s office wasn’t being furloughed, and “the cases keep coming.”

Hope could come from a crude oil production tax, which would have to be approved by voters. The earliest that measure could go on the ballot is 2010 because it has to coincide with the election of at least one supervisor. At a theoretical price of $1.20 per barrel, the county could raise more than $184 million within a decade. And the freshly approved PXP drilling project could bring the county almost $2 million in its first year of inception, and $12.5 million in its peak year, 2012.

But that is down the road, and the county’s problems are now. “This is as bad a situation as I’ve ever seen,” said outgoing 3rd District Supervisor Brooks Firestone. “The cumulative problems we have are of a crisis nature.”

Comments

Black Gold to the rescue? Hardly! Even oil cannot salvage the governmental mismanagement of this County.

So as residents of this County we're on the eve of not having government, that we pay for, for a long period of time because of their poor management?

They are going to furlough County employees during the Holiday season? That makes a lot of sense. (Not) That decision will further damage the economy! What are they thinking?!?

-Instead of cutting the Pool in Cuyama?-Cutting Social entitlement Benefits to illegal aliens?-County government funded ride-share vans for illegal aliens?-Welfare benefits for gang members and convicted drug offenders?-"Insurance for the "Children?"

They are going to send working Americans home! Bravo to the BOS for placing everyone in this County into a financial crisis and risking our very safety and health. They not only cannot figure out what is best for the long term health of the County, but even when the Grand Jury repeatedly hands them instructions on what a sound thinking government should be doing on some programs, they (The BOS) still cannot get it right!

The issues are further compounded by the two polar anchors in the County (Santa Maria City and Santa Barbara City) which are harboring and attracting more people that will simply steal from the public trust and County coffers.

But the BOS will lay off County workers during the Holiday season, further impacting local merchants and ruining the holidays for those County employees instead of performing appropriate cuts to pork barrel programs that benefit mostly criminals at the cost to local taxpayers in the tens of millions each month? Ridiculous!

How can they vote to use county funds to build a swimming pool "complex" in Cuyama? How about building one in the south county also if they're so flush, so swimming with disposable money! Buellton folk probably would also like to splash about in a publicly funded pool or pools (what is an "aquatic complex" anyway?)

Remember, the voters elected these people. Did anyone wonder whether any one of them had any financial sense whatsoever? Or were they elected because they promised whatever the voters wanted to hear. Carbajal, as an example, has raised to a very high level the art of saying absolutely nothing, so as to insult no voter, whenever asked any question of substance. Our founding fathers were not professional politicians; they were men of serious intellect, who may have disagreed on many things, but who did not depend on government for their living. Consider that when you vote for a professional politican ( a term some might consider an oxymoron).

A good friend of mine, (Brett Timmons, if care to look up the record), was held in Ukiah, California for 5 days to be extradited, and was subsequently extricated by a crack-private extradition-team for a 24 hour ride to Santa Barbara County Jail. The three warrants he was brought here for were: an Illegal camping (i.e., being homeless) ticket, an open container of alcohol in public ticket, and a failure to appear in court ticket for not taking care of the other two tickets. While I have no idea how much it cost this county, I'm sure there are a LOT of ways this giant, lumbering bureaucracy could trim some fat.

Clay T writes "They are going to furlough County employees during the Holiday season? That makes a lot of sense. (Not) That decision will further damage the economy! What are they thinking?!?

-Instead of cutting the Pool in Cuyama?-Cutting Social entitlement Benefits to illegal aliens?-County government funded ride-share vans for illegal aliens?-Welfare benefits for gang members and convicted drug offenders?-"Insurance for the "Children?""

I love the last line about the "Children". It's funny how politicians keep pimping "The children" to gain sympathy for their pet projects. My other favorite is when they say "As a mother" or "As a father" as if somehow that makes them more qualified simply because they performed a biological function and made a baby. What is amazing to me is that Santa Barbara county has so many educated people and so much wealth not to mention so many so called "progressives" yet it just can't seem to manage its finances.

I'm not so sure the "education" part is relevant - more like a total unwillingness to deal with reality. Budget issues are not that complex, nor do they require an advanced degree to understand. Revenue down, spending down. Very simple. "Progressive" is just a euphemism, in most cases, for "big spending liberal" - who never do seem to understand the basics of economics.

JohnLocke has just put forward another Conservative myth which is easily put to pasture:

"REPUBLICANS vs. DEMOCRATS ON THE ECONOMY....Did you know that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republicans? Sure you did. I pointed this out two years ago, back when my readership numbered in the dozens, and more recently Michael Kinsley ran the numbers in the LA Times and came to the same conclusion.

"The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations."(more at:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arch... )

"Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growthunder Democratic and Republican presidents in the post-war U.S. Democratic presidents haveproduced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in amodest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal moreincome growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase ininequality."

"The average annual rise in real per capita income (that's the statistic that puts money in your pocket): Democrats score about 30% higher.

"Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 % versus 3.89% for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33% versus 6.38%). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.

"Oh yes, almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year's delay, inflation under Republican presidents averages 4.36%, while under Democrats it's 4.57%. Congratulations."

In response to binky's post, is it just Republican presidents who are to blame for California's ongoing budget problems? And don't local officials bear a significant part of the blame for S.B. county's problems?

I don't think we can blame everything on Bush. (Much as I can't stand the guy)

Binky, thanks for the references (extremely rare in the blog world), but none of your quotes deny what I stated, which was that "progressives" (formerly known as liberals) are generally in favor of big government spending. It's part of the very definition of being a liberal - the notion that big government, and therefore big government spending, can solve all problems.

Assuming your premise is true (contrary to the immediate reality our most recent President icing the cake of "Big Spending") and it's truly Democrats who do the big spending, I would ask: What's wrong with spending big if there is a positive effect on the economy -- as my links assert?

The ever felicitous BillClausen:

My comment directed at economic pedagogue JohnLocke do not obtain to your questions: they do not blame or explain our country or county's current dilemma, they merely reflect the historical record.

Binky: Our soon-to-be-ex-President is the latest in a long line of self-proclaimed Republicans who have demonstrated historically Democratic tendencies when it comes to spending. Oh for the appearance of a Lincolnesque Republican!

Nothing wrong with spending big if indeed it positively affects the economy, assuming that the measures of success are accurate and apolitical, unless one disputes the ways in which the gov raises the money that it spends.

"Care to guess who I voted for Pres?"This could be a trick question. Do you mean 2004, as most would assume, or a mail-in 2008 vote?I'll give it a shot: Michael Badnarik (2004) of if you have already voted in the 2008 election, Bob Barr.

"Although I am a Libertarian at heart, I personally think that voting for one for Pres is a wasted vote."I figured that since John Locke is one of the historical icons of the Libertarian party that your screen name might be a nom de plume in his honor since it's not a common surname hence my guess that you might be a libertarian.

As for the "wasted vote" analogy, I undertand the emotion behind that argument, but I think that voting for someone that you don't believe in is a truly wasted vote. If you like Obama, fine, but if you feel in your heart that one of the third-party candidates is who you would like to see in office, then that is the person for whom you should vote.

People have told me that I waste my vote because not voting for Obama, or four years ago, Kerry, is giving the election to the Republicans, often citing the evils of the war and our eroding freedoms. I respond by pointing out that Kerry and now Obama are also pro-war and pro-patriot act and the best his supporters can come up with is "But he's our only hope". On the other hand, you might be able to cite some real differences between Obama and McCain outside these issues, which would show that you are more informed than the cult of personality surrounding Obama, and I suspect from reading your posts that you are more informed than the average person.

The differences between us is that we part ways on how much the two main candidates have in common. Either way, until the electorate turns up the heat on whoever gets elected, we stand little chance of seeing any real change. The same holds true for local leaders dealing with our budget. Also, let's assume Obama wins and turns out to have a great plan: What can one man do unless he has the support of the masses who realize that electing sympathetic congressional reps to support his ideas is crucial to his success? Same thing with the state budget--the governor alone can't solve the problem.

Billclausen, I understand your comment re wasted vote, but if there is no chance that one's prime choice will be elected, then IMO in the republican (small R) sense of compromise, the next best choice is the one that will have the most impact on the country. And while, Obama is clearly way left of my Libertarian views, the Reps have so screwed things up for so long that the pendulum needs a hard shove to the left. I have high opinions of both candidates this year, unlike many past years, but Mac's age and choice of VP candidate did it for me. BTW, I did NOT vote for Taxin' Jackson (obvious reasons) or Lois Capps (nice lady riding her husband's coattails) because they seem blindly to follow the Pelosi course which just terrifies me. And thank you for rational civil discourse - too much lacking these days...